Portal talk:Journalism/Selected quote

Images preferable[edit]

We now have only 11 quotes with accompanying free-use images relating to the author, and 13 quotes with no image provided. It is preferable, though not required, that new quotes have accompanying free-use images of the author, so that at least over 50% of the time that the portal is refreshed, the quote section will have a free-use image displayed. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Question[edit]

Is this a portal about "freedom of speech" or about "journalism"? If the quotes where about "freedom of press" I would understand, but as it stands now, there are way too many quotes here that are not specific to the subject of this portal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of those issues are directly related to journalism, the media and the press. Quotes don't have to be so tightly related to the main topic itself, as evidenced by the Featured Portal, Portal:Religion, among many others. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Portal religion has 24 quotes mainly from sacred books of religions which have articles in WP. In the case of this portal, as I said, a quote or two about freedom of speech, may be OK. I am only saying that there are too many, when there are many other quotes directly related to Journalism, Journalists, newspapers, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes in the Religion portal are not all about "Religion" itself as a topic, but as you say, about subtopics and belief systems within that main topic. I see no problem with that. Cirt (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ????? What does this has to do with journalism? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very famous quote, and it speaks to agreeing or disagreeing with what someone else has said (or written), and yet defending their right to do so. Cirt (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

At any rate, I replaced that one. You do not have to use more than one "?" question symbol after a sentence for others to know that it is a question. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Cirt asked me to weigh in on this. Before the deletion (one of my personal favorites as it turns out, and fitting for this portal, IMHO), I counted 15/47 quotes (one third of them) that looked to me like they were about free speech. I'd say that's a bit much percentage-wise on one topic. Would cutting it down to the top five work for both of you? RichardF (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before the deletion (one of my personal favorites as it turns out, and fitting for this portal, IMHO), -- Which one were you referring to? Cirt (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

There were more than one?! >;-o) RichardF (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redux to five on free speech, would be OK. I do not mind which... I leave that to Cirt as he added most of these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently then, Jossi (talk · contribs) did not agree with you about that particular quote being "fitting for this portal." Perhaps I will replace that one over one of the other "free speech" quotes, and then work on replacing a couple others with new ones. Cirt (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Not apparently. I really do not think this specific quote is related to the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, and RichardF (talk · contribs), both disagree with you. Cirt (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I can see that... as I said, up to you to redux to five, and to chose which ones to keep. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodrow Wilson is the only quote left that mentions "freedom of speech", but not "freedom of the press". To quote Jossi (talk · contribs) from above: "If the quotes where about "freedom of press" I would understand" -- So therefore the quotes that deal with "freedom of the press" can stay, and the only one left that should go is Woodrow Wilson, which does not. Cirt (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Done. Replaced that one. We now have zero quotes that deal solely with "freedom of speech", though we have some that deal with both "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press", which per Jossi (talk · contribs) from above, he "would understand". Cirt (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Not that I'm the one most worthy of throwing an overdoing stone, but maybe this would be a good portal for a slightly different approach on quotes. How about adding a few topical links in the footer of this box to wikiquotes, e.g., freedom of the press and whatever the rest of these are about? That might be a way to get more readers to see the broader collection of quotes than clicking the purge button or sifting through an unordered, truncated list here. RichardF (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this current format. And actually, if you take a look at WikiQuote, it's not that comprehensive on these topics, and certainly not as well sourced - actually most of it is unsourced. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- It might not be comprehensive now, but portal selections are not by design. Happy editing. :-) RichardF (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what I mean, what I meant was, why refer someone to another link, with potentially unsourced quotes and information, when there are sourced quotes here. But at this point I have removed/replaced some quotes, so that we should be alright with those that deal with "Freedom of the press". Cirt (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    - I was going beyond Jossi's original concern here. That's settled. I was just trying to trick you into sprucing up wikiquote a bit! ;-) As far as sourcing of quotes goes, I don't think anyone is looking to portals to be their go-to place for anything like that. Portals were designed to highlight wiki content elsewhere – articles or sister projects. I'd be surprised if much of anyone beyond the three of us even knows these quotes include citations. And we should not be expecting readers to be going to the subpages to see them. It's just not going to happen beyond a few hard-core editors like us. RichardF (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - To explain, the citations are there, well, because it's the right thing to do, and it follows along with Wiki-policies. Even if the quotes aren't part of main article space, they should still be sourced, otherwise, future entries could risk being WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
        Citing here is fine, but it still isn't expected practice in portals. I'm still going to flip the point on you. Portals are designed to showcase wikicontent found elsewhere. To be wikiconsistent, all of these quotes should be in the applicable articles (or wikiquotes) to which they are linked with the applicable citations listed in the article. Is that the case for the selected quotes in this portal? :-) RichardF (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A good point, and obviously the answer is no. But that's why all quotes must be from blue-linked individuals, so hopefully in some respect we can hope that some readers will be driven to other articles, and help improve other areas of the project. Cirt (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
        I think that what Richard is saying is that to be consistent with the purpose/role of Portals, we ought to copy these quotes to Wikiquote: {{Wikiquote|Journalism}}. That sister project template could also be added to the quote display template used in the main portal page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nah, I know of no portal that uses the sister quote templates, it looks fine to just show "More..." as a link to the relevant Wikiquote page. But if you wish to also copy these quotes to Wikiquote to the page on "Journalism", be my guest. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
        Ah, I see that the "More..." link takes us there already ... but what you find there is not what you have here, and that is what needs to be fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

No need for duplicates[edit]

There are enough notable individuals with both Wikipedia articles and free-use images out there that we do not need to have any individuals quoted more than once. Cirt (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

No harm done if there is one or two dups. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It opens the door to way too many duplicates from other individuals. Better to have variety from a mix of people. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, we disagree. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many quotes from each individual? Which individuals get duplicate quotes? How many is too many? These are all questions that would come up and cause problems. Best to make it easier and less controversial, and just have one quote per individual in the list. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Quotes without accompanying free-use images should be deleted.[edit]

I have replaced all quotes that I have added with other quotes with accompanying free-use images. Quotes that do not have accompanying free-use images should be deleted, or replaced with others that do. Cirt (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]